Posted on 03/24/2010 3:17:24 PM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
by David E. Smith, Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute -- http://www.illinoisfamily.org/
Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debate and ultimately pass the onerous health care "reform" bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea -- affirmed by some radically "progressive" lawmakers -- that health care is a "right." This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda. The implicit claim in the assertion that health care is a "right" is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that health care is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.
To see the difference in government-mandated health care and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights or not as they see fit. The government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech. In contrast, our radically "progressive" friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called right to health care. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?
What is really at issue is not whether health care is a "right" but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded health care. What other cherished American "right" has ever required that we diminish another's liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques and synagogues? Why then, does this "right" to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?
Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new health care "right" will be forced on every American, and it will be made possible by taking from citizens "according to their ability" and giving to others "according to their needs" (Karl Marx, 1875).
According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-OH), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions and mandates and require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.
Health care lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase "right to health care," which he argues "does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for health care":
How much health care is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment? Indeed, what is health care? Long term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils? And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the health care costs of those who are wealthier and sicker? These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a right to health care.
President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation -- legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created socialized health care system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although, the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable.
Healthcare is NOT a right, but gun ownership is. When can I expect the gov’t. to furnish me one, since it is a right?
Great article.
If its a right, then you can force people to give it to you.
Its not a right, its a need. You have the right to seek to meet your needs, to work to meet your needs, and people have the right to organize themselves to meet their needs. But you don’t have the right to force people to meet your needs.
Its similar with food. You need food. You need for someone to grow food, but you don’t have the right to force someone to grow food. And you don’t have the right to force them to give it to you. You have the right to offer something in trade for it that the farmer needs.
The socialist sleight of hand is to list all the needs that people have, and then denounce the government that doesn’t provide them. But governments aren’t the source of any of those things, people are. If government doesn’t feed people, people organize themselves and they work it out. If government doesn’t treat your medical needs, people organize themselves and they work it out. Thats the difference between self-organizing liberty and top-down oligarchy.
A Great article!
But this supposes that the proponents of this monsterous healthcare ‘reform’ will use an intelligent and critical analysis of the Facts!
Liberals don’t want Facts!
They believe in the old saying which goes: ‘Don’t Confuse me with the Facts!’ is Their Motto!
They just go by their touchy-feely Emotions!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.